Worst beer ever created by mankind

[Mittagessen]

There's a thread about good beers, so there should be one about horrible, horrible beer-like beverages. While there are many awful beers brewed in the US, there are some German ones that are pretty hard to beat. Oettinger is topping my list, with Aldi plastic bottle beer a close second. Both are some of the cheapest beers available in Germany (~10ct/bottle), so there isn't a lot of quality to be expected.

Tell us about your worst beer experiences.

[voidPtr]

Too many to list.

I'm not a fan of your corn-based American lagers (Budweiser, Molson Canadien, etc.) or any beer with less than 4% ABV but I wouldn't call them disgusting. Most of them are drinkable if not particularly memorable.

The worst beers I've had --- so bad I would choose drinking nothing instead of them, and believe me, that takes a lot -- have been in China and Vietnam. I don't remember the names of the brands in particular (Not tsingTao which is ok) but they all tasted like sour apple juice or they were very flat and yeasty (like poorly homemade beer). They were sometimes as cheap as 15-20cents a litre. You get what you pay for.

[Ulc]

A danish beer called Thy ecological Classic.

It's literally the only beer that have ever made me puke without being drunk. It was vile beyond description. It felt nasty in texture, smelled like the inner circle of hell on a bad day and tasted like you'd just blown Satan - and I'm NOT doing it's vileness justice here.

One sip and it had my guts on the grass.

Edit: On second thought, I have my doubts this beer was designed by mankind - it might not qualify.

[Bakemaster]

I find Heineken pretty gross.
American macrobrews go without saying.
There's a brewery that makes a Tangerine wheat beer somewhere around here that tastes like PBR, water, and a little orange soda. Yuck.

[Thesh]

I'm not a fan of your corn-based American lagers (Budweiser, Molson Canadien, etc.) or any beer with less than 4% ABV but I wouldn't call them disgusting. Most of them are drinkable if not particularly memorable.

Budweiser doesn't contain corn. It's mostly barley with rice as an adjunct.

American macrobrews go without saying.

I don't think most american macros are disgusting; they are designed to be drinkable by the majority of the population and are simply flavorless. Budweiser is good beer for a hot day, in my opinion. I haven't had a macro I didn't find really easy to drink.

There has only been one beer I couldn't drink, and that is Alaskan Smoked Porter. I've had beers that were difficult to drink, but I could force them down. This was a down the sink kind of beer. It's been a long time, and it gets some good reviews, but I remember it tasting really really nasty. It's probably just that the style didn't agree with me, and I haven't tried any other smoked porter to have a valid frame of reference, but I have to list it as the only non-drinkable beer for me. However, I can't actually say it's the worst beer anymore than I can say wine is bad (since I don't like wine).

[Bakemaster]

You know what's pretty drinkable, hits the spot on a hot day, and has a surprising amount of flavor?

Ice water.

I'm not joking in the slightest.

And it doesn't bother me if someone wants to drink an American macro. That's fine. I just don't see any American macros as doing the thing that someone should be doing in making a beer. I don't see those brews as touching on the important parts of what a beer is, to me.

[meatyochre]

That's fine. I just don't see any American macros as doing the thing that someone should be doing in making a beer. I don't see those brews as touching on the important parts of what a beer is, to me.

Not seeing how this makes them the worst beers in the world, though. An honorable mention for America for holding some of the lowest beer standards in the world, I'll grant that.
--
I have not tried many kinds of beer. I don't like beer, haven't acquired the taste. I try over and over again and I still can't even handle apple ciders (Woodchucks) because they taste too much like beer!

The worst beer I've ever tried was Guinness. Which I know is technically an ale, but I think ales and beers are OK for this discussion. It was practically fizzless (which maybe was the point, but it was still vile), and it tasted like a skunk fermented its stink glands in motor oil. F you, Guinness.

[Thesh]

The worst beer I've ever tried was Guinness. Which I know is technically an ale, but I think ales and beers are OK for this discussion.

Ale and Lager are two subsets of beer. The difference is that ales use top-fermenting yeast and Lagers use bottom fermenting yeast. I believe that in the UK people use beer interchangeably with lager, although it is incorrect to do so.

[Bakemaster]

Guinness may be one of the most overrated beers ever, but it's not a terrible beer, in my opinion. Just takes some getting used to if you don't already have a taste for stouts.

[Coffee]

My last homebrew effort. I thought maybe letting it sit and bottle-condition a touch longer would have improved it a bit, but it's about fit for... what... lawn food?

[Izawwlgood]

I had a homebrew that I probably should have contacted poison control over.

But I really loathe Corona. And what kills me most is how ubiquitous it is.

[Bakemaster]

See, I'm pretty okay with Corona, but that might have something to do with the fact that I know to throw a wedge of lime in there to make sure it tastes like something good...

As far as what to do with a bad homebrew, you could bake some bread with it, or use it for beer-battered something or other. The main purpose of the beer is to make the batter fluffy and voluminous, so flavor is less important.

[pooteeweet]

I don't mind drinking shitty domestic beer most of the time... But Genessee (especially their Cream Ale) is something I will not touch with a ten foot pole. Never, never, never again. Natty and anything with the suffix "Ice" are also out of the question.

[Telchar]

Obviously bottom of the barrel American brews (Milwaukee's Best, Natural Ice, Coors etc...) is going to be really bad. [redacted], [redacted..again], I find disgusting.

[voidPtr]

..and anything with the suffix "Ice" are also out of the question.

Haha good call on that one. Advertisers blatantly market their product as "ice" beer. It's funny isn't it, how they don't ever market it under it's real category, "water" beer.

[Thesh]

I agree with the ice beer thing, this stuff:

http://www.brewdog.com/product.php?id=47

Is NOT beer.

[Telchar]

That's different. That uses a process called freeze distillation iirc that creates a higher alcohol content. Ice beers use the same process as regular lagers, they just taste like shit.

[Thesh]

That's different. That uses a process called freeze distillation iirc that creates a higher alcohol content. Ice beers use the same process as regular lagers, they just taste like shit.

They all use the same process of partially freezing the beer and removing ice crystals to increase alcohol content (with the side effect of removing flavor), and none of them should be called beer.

[voidPtr]

They all use the same process of partially freezing the beer and removing ice crystals to increase alcohol content (with the side effect of removing flavor), and none of them should be called beer.

I agree.It's still a form of distillation, and they shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as a beer. From their perspective though, it's definitely better to be marketed as a high-alcohol percentage beer and sell it at 40bucks a can than it is be marketed as a very low-end whisky and sell it to at 3bucks a bottle, haha.

[Azrael]

That's different. That uses a process called freeze distillation iirc that creates a higher alcohol content. Ice beers use the same process as regular lagers, they just taste like shit.

They all use the same process of partially freezing the beer and removing ice crystals to increase alcohol content (with the side effect of removing flavor), and none of them should be called beer.

Brew Dog aside, all of the macro produced ice beers add the water right back in to bring the beverage back up to the typical ABV of shit canned beer, to avoid ATF regulations. So it's brewed naturally, freeze distilled and then dilluted back down to only a slightly elevated level.

Complaining that beverages produced in that manner are no longer "beer' is rather silly, especially considering the interestingly awesome things that craft brewers are doing out near the edges of beer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Being unjustifiably pedantic with definitions benefit no one but those who like to be unjustifiably pedantic.

Saying the same about Brew Dog and other hyper-concentrated brews is certainly in order, which is why, interestingly, most regulatory agencies require that distinction.

[Bakemaster]

The only thing that would be accomplished by campaigning against their inclusion in the definition of beer would be the introduction of a definition for "fortified beer" as you see with wines.

And that just sounds stupid, to me.

[meatyochre]

What exactly is boone's farm classified as? Because I think I remember the bottle saying it's some kind of wine, but it's... fizzy, for lack of a better term. It kinda seems like mildly alcoholic fizzy kool aid. It's not candidate for worst beer, because they're fun to drink and rather tasty (to me anyway). But I'm just curious what it's classified as.

[folkhero]

Sam Adams had some sort of cherry beer that tasted like someone mixed cough syrup with something rancid. I'm not just being snooty about fruity beers, although they aren't my favorite but I find most of them to be drinkable (Bud Light Lime does not rank as drinkable). That Sam Adams stuff might have just been a bad batch because I can't imagine a brewer would actually taste that and decide someone else should have some.

I hear a lot of people disparaging Natural Light. I'm not going to pretend it's a good beer, but if you think it tastes bad you're doing it wrong. Drink it cold and drink it fast and it's very nearly tasteless. That advice got me through many a college party.

[pooteeweet]

Sam Adams had some sort of cherry beer that tasted like someone mixed cough syrup with something rancid. I'm not just being snooty about fruity beers, although they aren't my favorite but I find most of them to be drinkable (Bud Light Lime does not rank as drinkable). That Sam Adams stuff might have just been a bad batch because I can't imagine a brewer would actually taste that and decide someone else should have some.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Fruity beers can be good, but recently everybody's been jumping on the fruity bandwagon with absolutely disgraceful results.

[voidPtr]

Saying the same about Brew Dog and other hyper-concentrated brews is certainly in order, which is why, interestingly, most regulatory agencies require that distinction.

Sorry, we're really discussing two things here macro "ICE" beers and hyper-concentrated brews, and I should have been clear that it was the hyper-concentrated brews I was talking about. I don't think that's being pedantic since it's a completely different drink.

The only thing that would be accomplished by campaigning against their inclusion in the definition of beer would be the introduction of a definition for "fortified beer" as you see with wines.

And that just sounds stupid, to me.

Is there a difference between whiskey and hyper-concentrated beers besides the method of distillation though? If so, wouldn't cold distilled whiskey be more appropriate? I ask that earnestly, I really don't know.

[Zarq]

Rodenbach, a Belgian fruit beer. It tastes like carbonated water, but with an extremely gross aftertaste that just keeps lingering for at least an hour.
This is the kind of beer you don't even drink if they're giving it away for free (and I know by experience).

[Bakemaster]

Sam Adams had some sort of cherry beer that tasted like someone mixed cough syrup with something rancid. I'm not just being snooty about fruity beers, although they aren't my favorite but I find most of them to be drinkable (Bud Light Lime does not rank as drinkable). That Sam Adams stuff might have just been a bad batch because I can't imagine a brewer would actually taste that and decide someone else should have some.

Yeah, you're thinking of the Cherry Wheat. I never liked it either. Got the same cough syrup vibe.

Is there a difference between whiskey and hyper-concentrated beers besides the method of distillation though? If so, wouldn't cold distilled whiskey be more appropriate? I ask that earnestly, I really don't know.

Think about what you're asking for a moment. Is there a difference between, say, whiskey and gin? Or vodka? Or rum? Should we just call everything by one name if it has a certain alcohol content? Maybe the question you're really asking is whether there's a difference between these incredibly high-alcohol beers and "spirits", and whether we should call it a "spirit" rather than a beer. To which I would respond, what practical purpose would that serve? These beers may not taste like a traditional lager, but neither do they taste like whiskey, rum or any other established liquor. And even if they did, there's rum that tastes like whiskey, there's vodka that tastes like lord knows what, but we still call them rum and vodka rather than whiskey and... sugarfree schnapps? I dunno.

[theGoldenCalf;]

Fosters. BLEAGH. Could barely down a bottle. Corona is also pretty bad but drinkable.

I think I also had some Rodenbach - or at least a widespread Belgian fruit-beer that was awful, like low-grade chemical soda. I may not be a snooty drinker, but I hate fruity beers with a vengeance.

There is a local beer here named Maccabbi that is considered the worst around, and for a reason. Very mild and watery, and overly acidic. Americans seem to like it because it resembles Budweiser, and this is exactly why I have never tried Bud and probably never will. Another beer of that variety is Orangeboom (Dutch lager) which is just as vile.

But I think the very worst I've ever had was a cheap beer sold by the crate named Bear Beer (Denmark). A couple of German guys I went to a party with brought a crate and finished it with the help of another guy. It was unbelievable. The beer tasted like mildly beer-flavored soda, had a noticeable iron aftertaste and was very flat. Couldn't take more than a couple of sips.

It may not fit here, but I've had sake (Japanese rice 'beer') - and supposedly a good brand of it - and it was horrible. Tasted like a mix of pure ethanol and warm water. The missus and I couldn't finish a small cup.

[SlyReaper]

I hang my head in shame for saying this, but I could never drink a full bottle of Leffe, the Belgian blonde beer. I'm a very enthusiastic ale drinker, and have gleefully drunk pints you almost had to tap the bottom of the glass to get out. But for some reason, I find the taste of Leffe revolting.

But everyone else loves it.

[voidPtr]

Is there a difference between whiskey and hyper-concentrated beers besides the method of distillation though? If so, wouldn't cold distilled whiskey be more appropriate? I ask that earnestly, I really don't know.

Think about what you're asking for a moment. Is there a difference between, say, whiskey and gin? Or vodka? Or rum? Should we just call everything by one name if it has a certain alcohol content? Maybe the question you're really asking is whether there's a difference between these incredibly high-alcohol beers and "spirits", and whether we should call it a "spirit" rather than a beer. To which I would respond, what practical purpose would that serve? These beers may not taste like a traditional lager, but neither do they taste like whiskey, rum or any other established liquor. And even if they did, there's rum that tastes like whiskey, there's vodka that tastes like lord knows what, but we still call them rum and vodka rather than whiskey and... sugarfree schnapps? I dunno.

I really think we're going full-circle here. My point to start with is that substance with 41% alcohol is not anything remotely resembling what we know as beer. It may or may not be similar to another spirit, but it's definitely not beer.

[theGoldenCalf;]

I hang my head in shame for saying this, but I could never drink a full bottle of Leffe, the Belgian blonde beer.

Don't be ashamed

I know quite a few people who hate it, and am not a big fan myself. It's just too sweet and "heavy", and many find that revolting..

[Bakemaster]

My point to start with is that substance with 41% alcohol is not anything remotely resembling what we know as beer. It may or may not be similar to another spirit, but it's definitely not beer.

And my point is that, while it may not taste like what you know as beer, the way it is produced does in many aspects mirror the techniques used to produce other beers. It's not difficult to expand your concept of what a beer is to include some rare styles that aren't characteristic of the mode.

[ArgonV]

My point to start with is that substance with 41% alcohol is not anything remotely resembling what we know as beer. It may or may not be similar to another spirit, but it's definitely not beer.

And my point is that, while it may not taste like what you know as beer, the way it is produced does in many aspects mirror the techniques used to produce other beers. It's not difficult to expand your concept of what a beer is to include some rare styles that aren't characteristic of the mode.

Are you sure about that? As far as I know, only something that is made by fermenting the sugars in the barley. And sometimes sugars are added. However, technically speaking any beers over ~10-11% alcohol volume are called 'barley wines' over here. And since even the most toughest yeasts die out at about ~13% alcohol volume. In order to make those 41% 'beers' you first need to make a beer and then distil it. That doesn't mirror a technique to produce beer, that mirrors a technique used to produce whisky. I assume they included hops in the beer stage though, which would be the major difference between these ultra-strong beers and whisky.
Anything made from barley and over 13% alcohol isn't beer any more. Not for me, anyway.

[Bakemaster]

In order to make those 41% 'beers' you first need to make a beer and then distil it. That doesn't mirror a technique to produce beer, that mirrors a technique used to produce whisky.

Since you first have to make beer, it absolutely follows a technique used to produce beer. It also then follows a technique used to produce spirits. Tactical Nuclear Penguin starts off as a regular old stout. At that point it's beer. Changing its alcohol content is never going to make it whiskey, gin, rum, vodka or any other type of spirit. As I've said before, the closest thing we have to precedent or convention would be the way we call port and sherry "fortified" wines, which would suggest we should call TNP and similar products "fortified" beers. That still makes them a subset of beers, though. I can't comprehend why anyone would find it so important to say that this is absolutely not beer. Why do you care? Is there a rational explanation, or is it purely a matter of what language you find comfortable?

[Thesh]

Since you first have to make beer, it absolutely follows a technique used to produce beer.

Whiskey is basically distilled beer, so by your logic you can call whiskey (and many vodkas) "beer" and brandy "wine."

They are entirely different drinks, with nothing in common but how they start out.

[Azrael]

Whiskey is basically distilled beer

If you're taking a broad enough view for that to be true, the unintended consequence is that *all* distilled grain spirits would be the same thing. The wort you distill into whiskey is simply *not* the same as beer.

[Thesh]

Whiskey is basically distilled beer

If you're taking a broad enough view for that to be true, the unintended consequence is that *all* distilled grain spirits would be the same thing. The wort you distill into whiskey is simply *not* the same as beer.

I agree that the wash that is distilled for whiskeys are not intended to be drank as beer, but they still follow the exact same process as beer just with different strains of yeast and different mash bills, but only for practical reasons and not by rule. The other difference is hops, but not all beers contain hops anyway (only the vast majority).

Of course, I highly doubt these freeze distilled beers use recipes that are intended for drinking without going through the freeze distillation process.

[ImagingGeek]

I home brewed for several years - some of my initial creations were truly revolting, likely because there was something other than yeast growing in them.

Not a fan of Bud and those other corn/rice based "beers", but by far the worst commercial beer I ever had was in New Orleans. Don't remember the name, but it was thin, watery, no detectable hops, and had a taste I now know is the case of fermented corn sugar (unpleasant cidery/vinegary taste).

I also occasionally buy a smoked beer (rauch-somethingorother) - it's so smoky it's like drinking a camp fire. I still buy it - to make BBQ sauce. The beer makes great BBQ sauce, but as a beverage, is all but unpalatable.

Bryan

[telcontar42]

Rodenbach, a Belgian fruit beer. It tastes like carbonated water, but with an extremely gross aftertaste that just keeps lingering for at least an hour.
This is the kind of beer you don't even drink if they're giving it away for free (and I know by experience).

Rodenbach isn't a fruit beer, it's a Flemish Red, a Belgian style of sour beer. I guess the style is kind of an acquired taste, but I love them and Rodenbach is a great example. It's quite sour though.

[Zarq]

Oh, well, I always thought it wasn't, but everyone says it is and I didn't know what else it could be.
Thx for the clarification!